Elements of a Just and Durable Peace 7 

to make perfectly certain that the United States does not become 
partner in any peace settlement made in defiance of the principles 
of international justice. If we are permitted to make sacrifices for 
the cause of international law and order, we must be permitted also 
to insist that the final goal of all this sacramental sacrifice shall be 
international justice. We are bound to oppose with all our might a 
peace imposed on the vanquished to gratify the desire for revenge, 
for territorial aggrandizement or power. May we not consider the 
entry of the United States in this war as a sacred opportunity to 
mediate between ancient enmities, and to inspire in the belligerents 
of the Old World confidence in new invigorating principles of world- 
peace? May we not through the horrors of war thus accomplish 
the ideals for peace which we had vainly hoped to accomplish through 
peace? 

Considering the problem of a just peace in its general aspect, 
irrespective of the present war, our duty would seem primarily to 
be that of helping all nations to understand each other. They must 
learn to sympathize and think ahke before they can lay the founda- 
tions of durable peace. This is a gigantic task of education and 
concihation. The agencies for this conciliative function are many, 
however, and include, especially, international conferences at The 
Hague and elsewhere to discuss the common needs and rights of 
nations. They include the various international unions such as 
the Universal Postal Union, the Red Cross, the Agricultural Insti- 
tute, the Brussels Ofl^ce of Customs Tariffs, the Interparliamentary 
Union and the Bureau of Arbitration at The Hague. 

But we in America should be particularly interested in the 
upbuilding of so promising an agency for international peace as the 
Pan-American Union at Washington. Admitting the supreme 
difficulties in the way of world-peace, we can at least, as practical 
idealists, turn our attention to the immense problem of bringing 
about the reign of justice and peace on this hemisphere. Let us try 
first of all to bring about an understanding between the twenty-one 
nations of this portion of a distracted world. Let us induce them 
to gather together to discuss, recommend, and to legislate in regard 
to their common interests. Having found a way to determine their 
rights, we may then properly proceed with the other difficult task of 
securing the most effective agencies for the interpretation and the 
protection of such rights. We have in the Pan-American Union the 



8 The Annals of the American Academy 

very agency for so magnificent a work. There would seem to exist 
no insuperable difficulties in the way of invigorating that institution, 
and giving it such increased powers of investigation, discussion, rec- 
ommendation, and even of legislation, that it may become the pro- 
totype of that greater world clearing house for the advancement of 
the mutual interests, the rights and the peace of nations which all 
men desire. 

In conclusion, we would do well to be on our guard lest the 
realization of the horrors of war should create an atmosphere of 
hysteria around this supreme problem of international justice. 
Horrible as this war is, it must not prompt us to recommend expe- 
dients for peace which might involve any fundamental denial of 
justice. We must remember that there are horrors of peace as well 
as of war. Where vice and wickedness flourish, where injustice 
reigns unrestrained, it is criminal to insist on enduring peace. 

Furthermore, we must recognize that, humanly speaking, 
nothing is permanent. There can be no perpetual peace. It may 
be striven for only through eternal conflict with wrong. And to 
secure the triumph of justice between nations, men, at times, must 
be wilUng and eager to fight. 

By an extraordinary paradox, then, war itself must sometimes 
be accepted as a righteous and an essential element of a just peace. 
Militarists^ pacifists and all good patriots aHke should fervently 
unite in the firm determination that so grim an element shall not 
have been employed in vain. 



Reprinted from The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social 

Science, Philadelphia, July, 1917. 

Publication No. 1135. 



ELEMENTS OF A JUST AND DURABLE PEACE 

By Philip Marshall Brown, 
Princeton University. 

To talk of peace in times of peace is an agreeable form of specu- 
lation. To talk of peace in times of war is a solemn obligation. 
There must be preparedness for peace as well as for war. 

Peace propaganda and discussion in the United States, while 
the world was at peace, or this country merely a neutral with the 
rest of the world at war, has been more or less academic and un- 
profitable. Sentiment has played a larger part than reason. There 
have always been earnest souls longing for peace — both spiritual 
and temporal. The horrors of war have accentuated these longings. 
The demand for the prevention of war, however, has become so 
fervid as to be hysterical. The cause of world-peace has been dis- 
credited, in part, by irrational denunciations of war, or ill-consid- 
ered proposals for its elimination. 

Now we are at war we should have a clearer mental vision. 
War is a marvelous stimulus to thought. It demands that we face 
honestly the great realities of existence. It does not allow us to 
linger in a fool's paradise. It compels us to test preconceived theo- 
ries in a fiery furnace. They must undergo " ordeal by battle. " 

We have had too much academic discussion, not only con- 
cerning peace, but in regard to almost every other field of human 
interest. In law, education, sociology, politics and religion, we 
have indulged in arguments, subtle distinctions, and intellectual 
refinements that have obscured the most elemental, primal truths. 
We have been in danger of losing that primitive power — shared by 
savages and children ahke — the power of distinguishing between 
right and wrong, justice and injustice. We have ignored the pro- 
found truth expressed by Montesquieu, that: "The sentiment of 
justice was created in man before reason itself." And war comes 
as a supreme corrective to this insidious academic anaemia. It 
hurls us into the center of the stupendous problems of the world. 
We are no longer onlookers and critics. The question of world- 
peace is now our own practical problem. It has ceased to be a 

1 



2 The Annals of the American Academy 

matter for academic discyssion. We have a right to be consulted 
and to be heard. We are bound to discover, if we can, the final 
goal of all this horror and heroism. 

What, then, are "the elements of a just and durable peace?" 
The very phrasing of the subject is in itself illuminating. What do 
we mean by 'peace? What is international justice? What is 
durable in human affairs? What are the elements that guarantee 
peace, justice and permanency among nations? 

First of all, we should recognize that peace is not the supreme 
aim of society. Like pleasure, contentment, character and virtue, 
peace is only a by-product. It is a result. It comes to the indi- 
vidual and the community alike when men live honestly and justly; 
when they have fought with the beasts at Ephesus, and conquered 
the forces of evil. Peace comes through warfare with vice and 
injustice. The supreme aim of society is not peace itself, but the 
triumph of justice. And men often know peace only when they are 
actually engaged in the fight for justice. 

Nothing could have been more infelicitous than the choice of 
the name of "The League to Enforce Peace." The enforcement of 
peace would be as abhorrent as it would be futile. The idea is as 
offensive as the so-called "pacification" of peoples by the armies of 
tyrants or conquerors. There can be no enforcement of peace, no 
true pacification where wrongs remain unavenged, and justice does 
not prevail. The true aim of all who desire peace should be, not 
the enforcement of peace, but the enforcement of justice. 

Justice, then, being the final goal of society, how is it to be 
attained? In any association of men for mutual benefit, the first 
aim is to determine their interests and rights. They then seek to 
find the most effective way to protect their rights. 

In order to determine rights, it is essential that men should 
share common conceptions of rights and obligations. They must 
think fundamentally alike. In order to protect their rights, they 
must have a direct control over the making of law, its interpretation 
and enforcement. Men are unwilling to abdicate entirely their 
rights into the hands of any absolute, final authority. The senti- 
ment of justice is, indeed, a primitive instinct. Though torrents of 
blood must flow, men will never cravenly surrender the cause of 
justice for the cause of peace. 

If this be true within a nation, how much more significant is 



^'^ 



/^ Elements of a Just and Durable Peace 3 

this same truth within the community of nations! We must never 
lose sight of the rightful aims of nationaUsm. Why do men group 
themselves in various national communities if not for the pursuit of 
justice? Nations, like men, demand the utmost freedom to attain 
this end along their own lines of preference. Is not the world 
vastly the richer through the intellectual, political, economic, artis- 
tic, ethical and religious contributions of free, independent nations? 
The basis of international peace must of necessity consist in the 
utmost respect for the right of nations to the fullest amount of 
freedom required by their legitimate national aspirations. 

How, then, are international rights to be determined? We 
ought at once to recognize the profoundly significant fact that all 
nations do not share common conceptions of rights and obligations. 
It is lamentably true, as Maximilian Harden has pointed out, that 
the rest of the world is against Germany "because they do not 
think as we Germans think. " Before we may attempt to determine 
the simplest rights of nations, Germany, Japan, the United States, 
Nicaragua, Spain, Russia and all the other nations of the world, 
must learn to think aUke in fundamentals concerning right and 
wrong, privileges and duties, justice and injustice. Until men in 
free democracies are permitted to indicate clearly their national 
preferences, we cannot rightfully pretend even to draw the bound- 
aries of nations with any certainty of justice. Witness Poland, 
Alsace-Lorraine, Schleswig-Holstein, and other disembodied na- 
tional spirits — not to fail to mention Ireland. 

If it has been impossible as yet to determine even the elemental 
rights of nations, how fantastic it seems to attempt solemnly to 
discuss the means of enforcing their rights! I do not mean to imply 
that there is no well-defined body of international rights entitled 
to protection. There are, of course, many such rights consecrated 
by usage, judicial decisions and treaties. In times of peace, these 
rights are universally respected and automatically enforced by the 
courts or the executives of civilized nations. Diplomacy, in ordi- 
nary times, pays unostentatious homage to these rights. There 
exist facilities for international justice through arbitration, com- 
missions of enquiry, etc., though these agencies need to be perfected 
and augmented. It still remains true, however, that, until the basic 
rights of nations are clearly determined by their active, intelligent, 
mutual consent, it is folly to talk of coercion. There can be no just 



4 The Annals of the American Academy 

coercion of men or of nations where there has been no clear defini- 
tion of their rights. This is the bed-rock of international justice. 
This is the sure basis of international peace; rights must first be 
determined before nations may be subjected to restraint by inter- 
national police or leagues of nations. 

It would seem clear that the determination of the rights of 
nations is a matter of mutual agreement. They may not be deter- 
mined arbitrarily by any one nation or by any group of powerful 
nations. This means, in concrete terms, that the victor in war 
must take care that he does not impose conditions of peace which 
violate the essential national interests of the vanquished. Arbi- 
trary annexations of territory, and the subjection of alien peoples 
can only lead to other wars. Witness the criminal wrongs of the 
Treaty of Berlin whose baleful effects we are still beholding today! 
The utterly vicious principle of the balance of power which hitherto 
has dominated and devastated Europe must definitely be aban- 
doned. Enduring peace can be laid on no such shifting foundations. 

The participation of the United States in the great war war- 
rants our insisting that it be ended in accordance with sound prin- 
ciples which shall guarantee the future law and order of the world. 
We cannot assume direct responsibility for all the complicated 
adjustments which must take place in Europe at the end of the war. 
We are bound, however, to determine clearly in our own minds, and 
vigorously to support those principles which should be obeyed in 
the making of peace. 

These principles would seem to be, in brief, the principles of na- 
tionalism, self-government and freedom of trade. The instinctive 
desire of men to group together in accordance with their distinct 
national preferences, whether of race, language, religion, political 
traditions, social customs or economic needs, must be respected. 
This is fundamental. It is directly opposed to the archaic prin- 
ciple of balance of power. If men object that certain nations — 
Russia, for example — may be a menace because of their size, it 
must be conceded that greater harm has already come through the 
denial of nationalistic aspirations. Idealists, as well as statesmen, 
would do well to cease their opposition to the just claims of nation- 
alities. The spirit of nationalism is a dynamic force which may 
not be repressed with safety. It need not be in opposition to inter- 
nationalism, if respected. It will disrupt the world, if not respected. 



Elements of a Just and Durable Peace 5 

The right of men to govern themselves is the second funda- 
mental principle which must be respected in order to encourage 
enduring peace. If it should not prove feasible in every instance 
to resurrect dismembered states, and draw anew the map of the 
world, at least the right of men to govern themselves in autonomous 
communities must be conceded. Complete independence, though 
supremely desirable, is not an absolute sine qua non of nationalism. 
The concession of autonomy in local government, in Poland or 
Ireland, for example, as in Bavaria or Canada, would go far towards 
the contentment and peace of nations. 

The third principle which should be observed, is that of free- 
dom of trade. Tariff fortresses constitute a menace as well as 
standing armies. Economic strangulation, as in the case of Serbia 
at the hands of Austria, may be as insidiously effective in the long 
run as open warfare. The threat of the Entente Allies to continue 
an economic warfare against Germany at the end of the present 
conflict should be viewed with alarm by all friends of world-peace. 

Nations will be compelled some day to come to a mutual under- 
standing concerning the exchange of products. They cannot tol- 
erate cut-throat competition. In many, cases, such as Serbia and 
Poland, for example, freedom of trade with neighboring countries 
would be a necessary corollary to their right to exist as separate, or 
autonomous national states. One dislikes being classified as a 
radical. The logic of the situation, however, should lead us to 
recognize that nations, sooner or later, must not merely destroy 
their economic barriers; they must also come to definite under- 
standings concerning the very basic questions of production and 
distribution. They cannot abandon protective dikes against the 
flooding of their markets by the products of cheap labor unless they 
first reach an agreement concerning the production and the dis- 
tribution of these products. If this understanding is not realized, 
then protectionist wars will continue; nations will suffer; discon- 
tent will ensue, and then hate and war itself. There is a danger, of 
course, of giving too much weight to the influence of economic fac- 
tors, in history, morals and politics. But we cannot afford to ignore, 
it seems to me, the profound significance of the principle of regu- 
lated freedom of trade as a necessary element in the peace of the 
world. 

Most of the writers on the law of nations have placed great 



Kl XJd.XI ^^-T 



6 The Annals of the American Academy 

stress on the so-called absolute, inherent, fundamental rights of 
states. Much of this discussion — particularly that relating to the 
sovereignty and equality of nations — seems academic. The right 
of a nation to exist, however, is the basic principle of international 
law. But this does not imply the consecration of an iniquitous 
status quo. Certain nations built up in flagrant denial of the rights 
of nationalities — Austria-Hungary, for example — can claim no abso- 
lute right of existence. National boundaries in many instances 
must be completely retraced before international law may prop- 
erly be invoked in defence of an alleged right to exist. 

The object of a great war like the present should be an endur- 
ing peace. And an enduring peace cannot be found unless it be 
based on sound principles. Such principles would seem in the main 
to be: the recognition of the rights of nationalities; the right to 
self-government; and regulated freedom of trade. If warring 
nations are not prepared to make peace in a spirit of equity and 
in obedience to sound principles, they must inevitably face the 
necessity of future wars. In such an event, it would be both futile 
and unpardonable to talk of perpetual peace. 

To summarize briefly, the essential elements of a just and dura- 
ble peace would seem to be the following : 

/ The necessity of common conceptions of rights and obliga- 
tions, of justice and injustice among nations. 

II The clear determination of the fundamental rights of nations 
in accordance with the principles of nationalism, self-government, and 
freedom of trade. 

III The clear determination of all the other rights of nations 
by mutual agreement. 

IV There shall be no collective coercion of nations by interna- 
tional police, or by any disguised form of international executive, before 
their rights shall be clearly determined. 

V The protection of such rights must be accorded in such a form 
that there shall be no menace to the freedom of men to pursue their legiti- 
mate national ends. 

Having faced squarely this stupendous problem that now con- 
fronts the United States, we should try to outline our immediate 
and practical duty in behalf of enduring peace. As regards the 
present war, we ought by every possible agency of speech and press 



LIBRARY OF 



CONGRESS 



020 934 693 A 



